From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751526AbdCBXvU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:51:20 -0500
Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:54746 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750989AbdCBXu7 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:50:59 -0500
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.127
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 165.244.249.23
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:50:03 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
CC: "'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@infradead.org>, <mingo@kernel.org>,
        <tglx@linutronix.de>, <walken@google.com>, <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        <kirill@shutemov.name>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        <kernel-team@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature
Message-ID: <20170302235003.GE28562@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1484745459-2055-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <1484745459-2055-7-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170228181547.GM5680@worktop>
 <20170302042021.GN16328@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <004101d2930f$d51a9f90$7f4fdeb0$@lge.com>
 <20170302143949.GP16328@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170302143949.GP16328@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on LGEKRMHUB02/LGE/LG Group(Release 8.5.3FP6|November
 21, 2013) at 2017/03/03 08:50:18,
        Serialize by Router on LGEKRMHUB02/LGE/LG Group(Release 8.5.3FP6|November
 21, 2013) at 2017/03/03 08:50:18,
        Serialize complete at 2017/03/03 08:50:18
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 06:39:49AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:45:35PM +0900, byungchul.park wrote:
> > From: Matthew Wilcox [mailto:willy@infradead.org]
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:15:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > (And we should not be returning to userspace with locks held anyway --
> > > > lockdep already has a check for that).
> > > 
> > > Don't we return to userspace with page locks held, eg during async
> > > directio?
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I think that the check when returning to user with crosslocks held
> > should be an exception. Don't you think so?
> 
> Oh yes.  We have to keep the pages locked during reads, and we have to
> return to userspace before I/O is complete, therefore we have to return
> to userspace with pages locked.  They'll be unlocked by the interrupt
> handler in page_endio().

Agree.

> Speaking of which ... this feature is far too heavy for use in production
> on pages.  You're almost trebling the size of struct page.  Can we
> do something like make all struct pages share the same lockdep_map?
> We'd have to not complain about holding one crossdep lock and acquiring
> another one of the same type, but with millions of pages in the system,
> it must surely be creating a gargantuan graph right now?

Um.. I will try it for page locks to work with one lockmap. That is also
what Peterz pointed out and what I worried about when implementing..

Thanks for your opinion.